Sharing articles that are behind a paywall is not allowed and the posts will be removed. You are however free to share articles that require registration (and can be accessed for free)
This policy is in place to maintain an open and accessible forum for all members. Discussions should be based on content that everyone can access and read.
LATER EDIT: Based on community feedback, the policy was updated as described here.
Out of curiosity, what brought this on? What particular publications are people complaining about? NYTimes? WAPo? Haaretz? It is concerning that the new rule will indirectly censor discussion of articles from reputable news sources while still allowing conversation about junk because it happens to be free.
And what happens if one quotes the relevant portion of the article, so that we all have access?
And what about linking to workarounds, like an archived version of articles?
This has nothing to do with specific publications. Posters should be able to respond to the content of a post, and they cannot do so if the information is behind a paywall. Expecting others to sign up for subscriptions is not a reasonable expectation.
If you wish to share content, you may provide gift links, archived links, or other alternatives that do not require payment. You can also quote relevant portions of an article, as long as you provide proper citation. However, linking directly to an article behind a paywall should only be done with a gift link.
Please note that posting the entire contents of an article is a copyright violation and violates our Terms of Service.
Confused by this. Quoting the relevant portions of an article that is okay, but the moderators want a written-out citation instead of an actual link that provides the exact same information as the written out citation?
Without citation or attribution, how will posters know what you’re quoting?
If you have an “actual link” (which does not require payment) you can certainly just use that instead.
It’s not complicated: if people have to pay to see the contents of a link, that is not allowed. If they can view without payment, that is ok.
Please note that this is now a site-wide policy, not just for the politics forum. If you have additional concerns, please contact the site’s administrators.
Should the changed policy on links to paywalled pages be announced in a thread in the community forum section where posters can ask questions about it if necessary?
Probably many posters on these forums are not reading this particular thread in the politics section (if they are even reading the politics section).
My understanding is proper citation of an online source requires the URL, which this site automatically turns into an actual link. So I don’t understand how we can can properly cite but not include a URL.
In other words, If if I type nytimes.com this site creates a link automatically. If I provide the URL as required also appears as a link:
But NYTimes.com is not the New York Times. The content is different. Seems weird to require us to improperly cite our sources, or to exclude the URL when providing on is commonplace and required even in informal citations.
I will refrain from providing just a link without explanation or quote, but I’ll continue to provide the url otherwise it creates problems of attribution. If CC wants to deactivate urls that’s on the administrative end.
I should have said nytimes.com instead of “NY Times”.
For example:
From the “Trump Administration Plans to Scrutinize F.B.I. Agents for Possible Purge” article on nytimes.com today:
<< quoted excerpt >>
Is that fine?
The goal of this policy is to not have posters be shut out from responding to a post because they cannot access the material being discussed. And no, expecting them to sign up for a paid subscription is not the answer.
That is no different than providing a link to a paywalled article. Every paywalled article allows you to see the title. And the name of the publication.
I have seen at least one post in the last month about a topic I would have been interested in reading about. However, the link was not a gift link and I did not want to sign up in order to read thr article.